NCAA Conference Realignment & Expansion Message Boards

Discussions by Conference:
 
NCAA Map
  It is currently Sun Feb 14, 2016 9:44 am

Help support CollegeSportsInfo.com by shopping

All times are UTC - 5 hours




Post new topic Reply to topic  [ 2229 posts ]  Go to page Previous  1 ... 145, 146, 147, 148, 149
Author Message
PostPosted: Thu Jan 28, 2016 7:48 pm 
Offline
All-Star
All-Star

Joined: Sat Jun 09, 2012 9:47 am
Posts: 1188
Location: Columbus, OH
I'm curious as to what everyone thinks the Big Ten's priority expansion targets are. I'll throw out some possibilities:

Notre Dame
Pitt
Boston College
Virginia
North Carolina
Duke
Georgia Tech
Iowa St
Kansas
Missouri
Oklahoma
Texas
Other


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Fri Jan 29, 2016 3:40 pm 
Offline
All-Conference
All-Conference

Joined: Sat Mar 21, 2009 10:21 pm
Posts: 964
fighting muskie wrote:
I'm curious as to what everyone thinks the Big Ten's priority expansion targets are. I'll throw out some possibilities:

Notre Dame
Pitt
Boston College
Virginia
North Carolina
Duke
Georgia Tech
Iowa St
Kansas
Missouri
Oklahoma
Texas
Other


I don't think they need/care about Notre Dame (ship sailed), Pittsburgh (duplicate market/Penn State), Iowa State (duplicate market/Iowa). And they'd go UConn well before they'd go BC.

1. Texas/Oklahoma (not happening)
2. North Carolina/Georgia Tech
3. UConn/Syracuse
4. North Carolina/Virginia

_________________
1897-1898 | 1900-06 | 1926-27 | 1929-30 | 1939 | 1942


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Fri Jan 29, 2016 5:31 pm 
Offline
Junior
Junior

Joined: Tue Apr 08, 2014 6:12 pm
Posts: 120
Keeping this realistic...

1. Oklahoma
2. Kansas
3. Missouri (requires SEC expanding by 3 and then "dumping" them)
4. Connecticut
5. Notre Dame (requires massive raid by the SEC on the ACC)
6. North Carolina (requires UNC passing on the more logical choice of joining the SEC)
7. Virginia (ditto)
8. Texas... I honestly don't get the hype anymore. Their athletic program could be considered inept for all the advantages it has squandered throughout history. Biggest and best everything inclduing most money = 2 National Titles in football since 1960. 0 National Titles in basketball period. And for the most part played in a relatively easy conference until 1996. Before 1996 this is how easy it was for Texas to get 6 wins... Rice, SMU, Texas Tech, Houston, Baylor, non-conference cupcake. Their biggest competition before 1996 was Arkansas and Texas A&M... two fine programs but not exactly on the level of USC, Oklahoma, Florida, Ohio State, Alabama ect.

Think about this...

The year is 1900. Two people are starting their own company. A benevolent force gives Person A ten times more money than he gives Person B every year. A benevolent force give Person A better "prospective employees" (re: recruits) than Person B every year.

Now in the year 2016, check in on the companies both people started in 1900 and find that Miami, Oklahoma, Nebraska ect. have all greatly out-preformed Person A (Texas) who had by any objective measure the greatest advantages of any "person running a company" since 1900.

UConn. 4 National Titles in Basketball and 10 National Titles in Women's Basketball. You could make a case that what UConn has done from the middle of a forest (Storrs, CN) with no money and zero local recruits is more impressive than the 1 National Championship Texas has won in a money sport since 1970.

Point is, Texas isn't well run. They should have literally double the amount of National Championships in ALL money sports than any competitor. If Vince Young doesn't play out of his mind and barely lead his team to victory once, you are looking at a "powerful brand" that has ZERO National Championships in a money sport since 1970. By comparison, BYU, Pittsburgh, Colorado, Washington and Georgia Tech have the same number of football National Championships as Texas since 1970. That is failure on a wild level from Texas. You are talking about a program of the highest privilege that has not won two National Championships in the past 50 years.

Look at them now. Literally look at Texas and tell me when and why things are going to change. Even if you put on orange glasses and tell me things are going to get better, is Texas going to win a National Championship in the next 20 years? Hell, even Baylor out recruits Texas now. Texas passed up two Heisman Trophy QBs and Andrew Luck... for Colt McCoy's dingus brother and a litany of QBs who the NFL chooses not to even scout. As I said, poorly run is how I would describe Texas. And this is BEFORE mentioning the once proud power conference that they crippled with their own stupidity and blatant lack of foresight.

The Big Ten didn't get to be the Big Ten by making awful decisions. And while they could certain do worse than adding Texas, I don't think the Big Ten has any desire to add them over even say Kansas who has at least proved themselves worthy of building an annual contender in basketball.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Fri Jan 29, 2016 8:02 pm 
Offline
All-Conference
All-Conference

Joined: Sat Mar 21, 2009 10:21 pm
Posts: 964
The funny thing in all this though, is that the SEC, Big Ten and Big XII have literally passed the point where athletic performance actually matters.

Who CARES that Texas has won a championship in football once in 40 years, or has never made the Final Four? There's a ton of cable TV subscribers in Texas, and the Big Ten will get rich if all of them start getting charged for BTN to watch Texas try and fail to win a title.

The Big Ten doesn't lack for championship contenders. For some reason, we've been so focused on "Who the ACC takes from the Big East, who the Big East takes from C-USA, who C-USA takes from the Sun Belt, who the Big East takes from the A-10, who the A-10 takes from the CAA/Horizon, who the American takes from C-USA, who the MWC takes from the WAC, etc" that we've forgotten about one major thing:

Those losing power have to invite power. Those adding to EXPAND their power don't need powerful programs. They just need the big state schools from populous states and they're fine. The "big games" in college football and basketball are big games when there's something on the line. The polls will dictate what games the whole country watches. They just need large fan bases for the "other games"

_________________
1897-1898 | 1900-06 | 1926-27 | 1929-30 | 1939 | 1942


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Fri Jan 29, 2016 11:15 pm 
Offline
Junior
Junior

Joined: Tue Apr 08, 2014 6:12 pm
Posts: 120
Maybe the Big Ten is past the point of caring about the athletic accomplishments of prospective athletic programs. Their latest choice of Rutgers speaks to this.

You bring up an excellent point and one I had never so boldly considered. It is quite possible that National Championships mean nothing in conference realignment.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Sat Jan 30, 2016 11:47 am 
Offline
All-Star
All-Star

Joined: Sat Jun 09, 2012 9:47 am
Posts: 1188
Location: Columbus, OH
I love Big Shot Bob's analysis if the Texas athletic department---with all of those resources they really should have more to show for all of the advantages that they have over the rest of the schools in the region.

In retrospect I wonder if the Big Ten should have taken a different strategy when all of this expansion started. Maybe they should have gone for 5 Big 12 teams instead of just Nebraska and then making eastward moves with Maryland and Rutgers. The Pac 10 made an offer for Colorado, Oklahoma, Oklahoma St, Texas, Tech, & A&M. The Big Ten should have countered with an offer for Nebraska, Kansas, Missouri, Texas, and A&M grabbing up all of the AAU programs but Colorado and Iowa St.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Sat Jan 30, 2016 10:36 pm 
Offline
Freshman
Freshman

Joined: Sat Jan 30, 2016 10:05 pm
Posts: 1
Southern Illinois-Edwardsville!

But seriously, though...

Not that this will be news to anyone, but expansion is being driven by the almighty dollar. Therefore the biggest targets for the Big Ten will still be those who add the most eyes to the Big Ten Network, added bonus if they can actually give a good product on the field/court.

Biggest Targets: Texas, Notre Dame, North Carolina.
Secondary Targets: Oklahoma, UConn, UVA, Mizzou, Georgia Tech

I can't envision any scenario where Pitt or Iowa St. ever gets the invite...

I honestly don't understand why Virginia Tech never comes up in this discussion, but if the Big Ten had to expand and I could make the choice, I would offer the invite to Army and Navy. Army has an amazing history in football, and Navy has been quite good recently. They both reach a very loyal, national fanbase, and don't over-extend the reach of the Big Ten. Just add them to the East, kick Indiana to the West with Purdue, and voila!


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Mon Feb 01, 2016 4:09 pm 
Offline
All-Conference
All-Conference

Joined: Sat Mar 21, 2009 10:21 pm
Posts: 964
bigshotbob wrote:
Maybe the Big Ten is past the point of caring about the athletic accomplishments of prospective athletic programs. Their latest choice of Rutgers speaks to this.

You bring up an excellent point and one I had never so boldly considered. It is quite possible that National Championships mean nothing in conference realignment.


They really don't. We're just used to the top five making a move, and then the OTHER 26 conferences making invitations based mostly on STRENGTH in football & basketball that we assume "everyone only adds powerful programs."

And I think the "Conventional Wisdom" of "the league gets stronger when you add powerful programs and big markets" has passed diminishing returns for the top fifth of the conferences. And I don't think market size really matters for anyone not running their own cable network.

This probably deserves its own stand-alone post, but the theory is available in full detail on the Big East thread.

_________________
1897-1898 | 1900-06 | 1926-27 | 1929-30 | 1939 | 1942


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Mon Feb 08, 2016 5:41 pm 
Offline
All-Star
All-Star

Joined: Tue Jun 13, 2006 2:37 pm
Posts: 7822
Article out of Fort Wayne(previously posted in another thread)with comments from IU AD regarding various topics at http://www.news-sentinel.com/sports/iu/ ... g-expenses


Top
 Profile  
 
Display posts from previous:  Sort by  
Post new topic Reply to topic  [ 2229 posts ]  Go to page Previous  1 ... 145, 146, 147, 148, 149

All times are UTC - 5 hours


Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 1 guest


You cannot post new topics in this forum
You cannot reply to topics in this forum
You cannot edit your posts in this forum
You cannot delete your posts in this forum
You cannot post attachments in this forum

Search for:
Jump to:  
 

 




Looking for College Sports apparel? Support our partner:








Support Our Partners: Search Engine Marketing - Search Engine Optimization - Search Engine Training - Online Marketing for Restuarants

Subway Map Shirts - Food and Travel

Powered by phpBB © 2000, 2002, 2005, 2007 phpBB Group